Various and Sundry Linkfest
Posted by Prof. Goose on February 20, 2007 - 4:45pm
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: energy bulletin, john robb, kurt cobb, lou grinzo, mark gongloff, wall street journal [list all tags]
It's a slow day here at TOD, so I think I'll just give you some links to consider for the evening.
First off, Over at EB today, there's a good piece by our friends Andrews and Udall from ASPO-USA with another response to CERA and its credibility.
Here's a new blog on energy over at the WSJ worth keeping an eye on (they kindly mentioned TOD today).
We haven't mentioned friend of TOD Lou Grinzo's Cost of Energy in a while, always a good read.
The folks who have been around a while know that I am big fan of John Robb's work.
And last but certainly not least, Kurt Cobb has a new one out today entitled "Why the Precautionary Principle Doesn't Cut Both Ways."
Lou Grinzo (from the WSJ):
This of course applies to bitumen deposits--large reserves, slow production rate.
I've got my own little West Central Texas example. Normally our reservoirs have light, sweet oil, but we just tested 22 degree gravity free oil from a shallow oil reservoir. I don't know what the recovery factor will be, but if it had been light, sweet, we probably would have been looking at 400,000 BO per 40 acre unit, at a depth of 2,000'. In any case, we are planning on very slow production rates, probably in the 10 to 20 bpd range (versus 50 bpd plus normally).
The problem is that the we have heavy viscous oil in a high quality reservoir which is much more permeable to water than to oil, and producing at high rates is an invitation for early water breakthroughs.
BTW, with the WSJ reference, IMO you picked a very good time to raise the level of the discourse. I've always viewed the "recent unpleasantness" as a property right's issue. The editors are free to make the rules. No one has to stay.
Re: BTW, with the WSJ reference, IMO you picked a very good time to raise the level of the discourse. I've always viewed the "recent unpleasantness" as a property right's issue. The editors are free to make the rules. No one has to stay
Golly gee, Jeffrey. I wonder why "the level of the discourse" got raised when it did? I'm stumped.
I think that things have improved quite a bit. Are you sure you don't want to stay?
We'll see. Banning 3 people is a stop-gap measure. I was looking for a policy — you know, like we want the Feds to adopt?
And, maybe I'm not welcome anymore. Disloyalty and all that ... not a team player... certainly, nobody has bothered to talk to me about it... and I have no idea about how decisions are made around here on TOD ... but —
we've been all for the rights of people who comment, but apparently have disregarded those of the people who write the content... I'll take on CERA, XOM, etc. but can I live at home?
Dave,
I also know very little of the interactions and decisions of the TOD editors. However, let me assure you that I highly value your work, insight and contributions !
Best Hopes & Happy Mardi Gras :-)
Alan
PS: On his second day of posting, I decided not to read any of Dave Matthews posts (and posted this decision for others to consider). Other than IP, I generally skimmed the others. I did note that Freddy used bathroom insults the other day, which is beyond the pale IMHO.
TOD will have to compete with edited position papers from CERA et al. If we aspire to this, a certain tone and level of discourse will be required. Very few blogs can compete in the realm of ideas with the likes of CERA in any arena of ideas. TOD can if we chose to.
Here is the policy (which I would hope people would ascribe to in their every day lives, but perhaps that's too much to expect from adults): be civil, be respectful of others (including typing in a manner suitable for someone over the age of four), and you can participate here, whatever your perspective.
Not that we have to justify our decisions, but none of us enjoyed making the decisions we made the other day; however, know that we will do what we need to in order preserve TOD as place where we can talk about ideas in a civil and respectful manner.
It got out of hand, and it was dealt with. It will get out of hand again, and it will be dealt with again.
If folks don't like how we do things around here, oh well. You're always welcome to go elsewhere.
Re: Here is the policy...
I said
Re: I have no idea about how decisions are made around here on TOD
And PG said ....
Not that we have to justify our decisions, but none of us enjoyed making the decisions we made the other day....
Say goodnight, Gracie.
Dave - I just tried again to email you and your email address is still bouncing. The policy wasn't imposed on anyone, but was developed through discussion.
davec @ linkvoyager.com
We're on the same staff e-mail list. How hard can this be?
That's the email address I was using. Every time I used reply all to send a staff email as part of the discussion we had, I got a postmaster message almost immediately saying the delivery to your address had failed. I tried again this evening and it failed again.
Just because you weren't involved Dave, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a collective decision that involved more people than myself.
In the whole time I have been at TOD, I have never seen a collective decision. At least, not one that involved me.
Never.
Point taken--I will go elsewhere--not because I do not want civil and respectful debate, I do, but because I want to see opposing views and I do not agree with how the admins approached the banning.
The approach they made looks like they were banned more for their opposing views and not for their tone. First of all, I believe that the site should have posting guidelines. Then, if the admins do not approve with how someone states something, point out what is unfavorable and tell them the next time they repeat it they will be banned for 3 days. If it continues, then ban them.
If I could look back at old post, and had the time, I would show how a few of the banned posters got flamed more then they ever "disrespected" other posters. Cursing was rarely used and if something was attacked, it was the opposing posters idea, not the poster themselves. Most the time they provided information why they believed the opposing view was incorrect.
I would sometimes see a post something like, “You have to be kidding me. You would have to be incompetent to believe x,” but then it was normally followed up with pretty sound information backing up their view/opinion. I do not agree with how they stated it and believe it could have been stated in a more politically correct manner, but I also believe that the admins approached this poorly.
Regards,
Michael
How are the inflamatory posters suppose to k
If you really went back, you would have found lots of personal slams by all 3 banned posters. If you look further, you will find that there have been and are posters well read and respected by most of us on TOD who have views consistent with H****'s and even possibly F***'s for example in terms of peak dates. Khebab, Rembrandt, RR, Euan Mearns, Skrebowski and several others have the same view of peaking dates for example as does H*****r, but have engaged in a long-term, civil, mutually respectful debate with Westexas, Dave Cohen and Stuart Staniford who believe peak is here.
I think, therefore, it is obviously not the opposing views that got them banned. I think the right decision was made. I hope Dave will stay. I am sorry we lost Freddy, because he did have a contribution to make, but he also was extremely rude and derogatory too often, which detracted from his own points.
Dealing with opposite views in a democratic and fair way is a touchy subject. I'm also a moderator on PO.com and appreciate the difficulty of moderating a forum. I agree that it takes courage to preach contrarian views on any forum. Try to preach Darwinism in a creationist forum and see what happens! Everybody will dismiss your views and you will get very frustrated very fast and may resort to ad hominem attacks to get some reactions.
IMO, in any public arena, if you have contrarian views and want to convince people it's up to you to make high quality comments, backup your claims with references and be as civil as possible. I think TOD should have zero tolerance on any ad hominem attacks from any posters. The best would be to have some sort of comment ranking/filtering system in order to filter the noise.
if you have contrarian views and want to convince people it's up to you to make high quality comments, backup your claims with references and be as civil as possible.
No, this is most often ineffective, see Controversial Dialectic.
Therefore I disagree with this:
I think TOD should have zero tolerance on any ad hominem attacks from any posters.
The problem isn't ad hominem or whatever "political correctness" it is EFFICIENCY, the banned trolls weren't efficient they were clumsy and undermined their own positions, they rightfully lost, I am NOT supporting them.
I only want to emphasize that your suggestion is misdirected.
Interesting, however how do you evaluate a poster efficiency? maybe (total valuable information)/(number of comments).
khebab, I do love the way you think.
"Not that we have to justify our decisions"
Indeed you do not. If we were all paying a subscription fee and you were drawing a salary for your position, then you would have to justify it to us. So long as you and the other editors spend your time and effort to create this site on a volunteer basis, you can set the rules the way you like. If people don't like it, they can volunteer their own time and start their own site.
exactly right. if we asked you all for a subscription (*cough* CERA *cough*) fee of about $500 a month, then you would have the right to complain. You get all of this for free, and you all expect the moon AND the stars.
If any of you are a millionaire and would like to subsidize the site, then you can pay us all and tell us what to do and how to do it. Until then, grow up and be adults. Learn from us and each other. Have a positive respectful discourse, with as much civil disagreement as you like.
That's the only freaking goal here. It is NOT that hard. Really.
More light than heat. That's all I am asking.
You have nothing to apologize for. It was an action that was needed to break the downhill momentum of the site. I was getting to the point that I didn't want to read it anymore, and was just skimming the drumbeat links, and I've been here since 1.0.
It is just a stopgap, however - any of them can register new accounts and start all over again. The next step needs to be a filtering or community moderation system. Y'all will decide what path you want to take; as long as you keep the discourse level high, I'll support it, and thank you for the job you do.
And as for funds, I'm more than willing to pay people to hack some Drupal for you, or to do it myself, since web framework hacking is what I do for a living.
Actually, there are three of us just itching to get at the site (and install the karma module asap... :). Super G is coordinating the whole thing, but he's currently having trouble getting access to the site to us.
On a personal note, I much prefer the idea of community moderation, since I feel that, in a way, it's a defeat for us all when we are obliged to ban people just to keep the site in order.
David.
I used to feel that way too. I became a business owner 6+ years ago. I felt restricted as an employee by my supervisor to do things that eventually were found to be better than the old way, but not always.
Our first year(+) I let employees have a freer riegn. That was both eye opening and educational. Not everyone has the same values as the owner, whos finacial risk is 100%. Add to that a few customers who simply did not pay thier bills for months while we were borrowing money to cover payroll.
I have learned the hard way it is up to the owner and what you think is important. There needs to be leadership, they must agree on the goal(s), and commit to policy that is not always popular. Such are the burdens of being the "boss"
Prof G. I think you did what you had to do. You are the owner of this site and you can always change you mind or modify your goals as time and new information comes available. It isn't all that fun, and nobody told you this was part of "the job". You have my empathy.
D
What he said.
Hear hear! The trolls did obstruct civil discourse and deserved banishment. Thanks for being proactive, even if a bit late.
"If folks don't like how we do things around here, oh well. You're always welcome to go elsewhere..."
I am really disappointed to read these words. It's very much like: take it or leave it. These are not the words of someone passionate about their project, passionate about their cause...
The troll problem got to extreme levels... and where were you? Where were the editors?
What got the ball rolling was a contributor... GreenMan. A killfile got the ball rolling. That is what happened... everyone who reads regularly dropped the same 3 posters.... Go figure.
So now we have hostility from the top. It's unwarranted. You have to sell each and every day. Just like the rest of us. To make this work, you need a community and to have a community you must be responsive to that community. You weren't.
What we need to read is not... take it or leave it.
What we need to read is... we, the editors, are involved, your thoughtful participation is important. We are sorry we let things get out of hand.
I know we can all do better. Raise the bar for yourselves, even as you raise the bar for the rest of us.
Will, I was stating that more as a fact than as hostility. You can all go elsewhere. It's true. We can't keep you. Instead, we put together a place where you can all express ideas and learn from each other.
We're doing this for free, as volunteers. We have raised the bar a ridiculous distance on this topic, and we strive to do so every day.
As much as I freaking work behind the scenes, as much as we all work behind the scenes to do this, what do we get out of it? Why do we do it? You all don't have any idea how hard this is to do. SuperG deserves millions of dollars for what he does. The contributors to this site deserve accolades and six figure salaries. They don't get it from you all, instead they get trolls and maybe a couple of thank yous.
It takes a lot of passion just to come here every day and make it happen. So, don't you dare question my passion or motivation, or anyone else's on this site.
Your thoughtful participation *IS* important. We *ARE* sorry we let things get out of hand. We dealt with it.
My point was that, if you don't like how we dealt with it...oh well, you can always go elsewhere.
I, for one so far it seems, am quite pleased that you have invited us into your living room for a chat. I also believe that since it is your house, I will have to wipe my shoes on the mat when I walk in the door. If I start insulting your wife or the decor of your house, you have every right to pick me up by my coattails and toss me out.
Thanks again for creating this forum. Next time, I'll bring a little Chianti.
me likey Chianti. :) but I like your words even better.
Exactly. Jeez Louise people. It's a freakin' free blog. Let me say that again: it's a freakin free blog! If it was a paid subscription service and you don't like what the proprietor(s) do then you don't reup your subscription. But this is free! I haven't been paying attention but it seems the TOD Overlords banned three people? Okay sure banning people is never a joyous occassion but people get banned from boards all the freakin' time. It ain't the end of the world.
About once a week I get an email from somebody complaing about the content of my news updates. I typically respond by telling them that the updates are free and if they don't like what I post then they can get lost.
Sometimes, if I'm feeling particularly salty, I'll just respond with "then get lost assh-le" or something along those lines.
=)
It was our community's first public hanging. Everyone is still excited.
Green: After reading some of the comments, one would assume the three posters had been sent to Gitmo.
Will wrote:
What a bizzare existence! Will Loman, you have my sympathies.
Dave - your email address was bouncing.
I'm sure you'd be welcome - your posts have always been excellent, and you weren't the only one who was frustrated over the troll issue.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, perhaps you are saying that the staff has made you feel unwelcome by not consulting you. Not much I can say about that.
For what it's worth, it was the shabby way you were treated in the comments in your thread a few days back that motivated me to do what I could. I respect your work and was more than a little shocked. Adding my voice to the flamers could only make it worse, so I tried something else.
You are absolutely right, the bans are only a stop-gap.
This is part of the growing pains of an on-line community. We can get through this. A policy is good, and probably necessary, but it will take staff time to enforce it.
Here's a shout-out to Prof. G and the other staff. You have more than one crisis going on. The trolls were one (there will be more trolls in the future). The other one is the potential loss of quality contributors like Dave Cohen and westexas (though he doesn't seem to be able to fully tear himself away).
Dave, you don't need to walk to make your point. What do you need from the site and the community, and give us a chance to figure out how to get it to you.
I'm about to bitchslap some people on my forum but of course just as I go to do it my forum goes down. =(
Re: bitchslap
You've got that right, Matt. I did that myself.
The latest crop of trolls seem to be wearing out their welcomes in a whole lot of places, almost simultaneously.
It's like a cold front hitting the historic miasma over London.
Hi Dave and Chimp/Matt,
I don't understand what's going on, except that Dave would like a policy - (?). Was the one given enough? Should it be more specific?
Q: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bitchslap&defid=121011
Is this "guy talk"? I (honestly) don't get it (maybe I'd rather not know.)
Aniya,
I was meaning to use it in a non-gendered sense. In this context it means to intellectually shout down or something along those lines albeit with a bit more bravado/creativity.
Hi Chimp/Matt,
Thanks for responding - (I like your long version better.)
BTW, in case you see this,I referred to an exchange of a few months ago over at "The Book". http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2182, (down under comments, 2/14) and I wanted to let you know, so as to avoid talking behind your cyber-back, so to speak.
Oh, by the way. I've got to endure e-mails from the TOD staff talking about the +/- of Freddy Hutter -- like there was something to discuss.
Clueless. As though insanity on TOD has its rights.
Is that your bridge-burner? Dude, you are m